books were our Gospels and Epistles, is liable to great exceptions, since they are not allegorical in their nature, nor were they published any considerable time before Philo's own writings; so that upon the whole, I believe, it is more reasonable to say, these Therapeuta were those first Christians Asceticks, who had gotten very imperfect accounts of Christianity, and were guided by the Gospel according to the Egyptians, which, we know by the fragments remaining, was a Gospel sufficiently mystical and allegorical, according to the genius of that

nation.

These are the sentiments of the critics in later ages concerning this Gospel. I have now only left to make some reflections upon the whole. Accordingly I observe:

OBSERV. I. That the Gospel of the Egyptians was certainly an apocryphal book. This appears, 1. by Prop. IV. it not being found in any of the ancient catalogues of sacred writings; 2. by Prop. V. as it is not cited in any of the old records of Christianity, but rejected as apocryphal by Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Jerome, and Epiphanius, who are the only fathers who have mentioned the name of it. This is evident as to the three last, and may be easily collected from the passages of Clemens above cited, as I shall undeniably shew presently; 3. by Prop. VI. it not appearing even to have been read in the Christian assemblies; 4. by Prop. VIII. as it contained things contrary to known truths. Of this sort I believe every one will readily allow the doctrine of the unlawfulness of all marriages, which, it is certain from the passages of Clemens, this Gospel asserted. Of this sort must needs be our Saviour's declaring, he came into the world to put an end to all marriage, i. e. in effect to the race of mankind; which it is plain, by the whole of Clemens's arguing, as well as by the pas sage itself, was declared as spoken by Christ in this Gospel. Lastly, of this sort Epiphanius reckoned the Sabellian heresy, which was evidently contained therein; but from hence I conclude nothing, it being at this day defended by some: but a most undoubted instance of falsehood is, that Salome in this Gospel is introduced, as applauding herself for having borne no children, (see the place above out of Clem. Alex. p. 453.) whereas it is certain, that Salome was the wife of Zebedee, and

the mother of James and John, two of our Lord's apostles; for she, who is by Matthew called the mother of Zebedee's children, chap. xxvii. 56. is by Mark, chap. xv. 40. expressly called Salome: that these children were John and James, appears from Matt. iv. 21. x. 2. and many other places. 5. It was evidently apocryphal by Prop. XI. seeing it relates those things as spoken by Christ, which are directly opposite to his known style and manner of speaking; for whereas that was perfectly clear, easy, and familiar, the sayings here attributed to him are each of them mystical, involved, and perplexed, and more like the foolish ambiguous answers of the Delphic oracles, than the rational and plain discourses of Jesus Christ. To instance only in one, when Salome asked him, "When the things, which she inquired about, should come to pass?" he is made to answer, "When you shall tread under foot [or de"spise] the covering of your nakedness, and when two shall "become one, and the male with the female neither male nor "female."

It seems therefore very unaccountable, that the authors above-mentioned, viz. Grotius, Du Pin, father Simon, and Dr. Grabe, should have thought so highly of this Gospel, and reckon it of a different sort from the books of heretics, and not to be rejected. I leave it to the reader, after what is now said, to judge, whether the five arguments I have offered to prove it apocryphal, do not also evidence it to have been the composure of some monstrous and silly heretics, as Origen and Jerome expressly say, and consequently to be rejected as an impious and ridiculous forgery.

OBSERV. II. Clemens Alexandrinus never saw the Gospel of the Egyptians, never made one citation out of it, but, on the contrary, rejected it as an impious, heretical, and apocryphal book.

This observation is of very considerable importance in this matter, because the want of it induced the learned critics just named into their erroneous and too high opinion of this Gospel. They imagined it was appealed to, and made use of, by Clemens Romanus and Clemens Alexandrinus in their writings, and therefore concluded, it ought not to be meanly thought of. "It is cited by St. Clemens of Alexandria," saith

Du Pin, "Clemens Romanus," saith Dr. Grabe", "or who"ever was the author of the second Epistle to the Corinthians, undoubtedly most ancient, made use of it." And again; "Clemens Alexandrinus doth not reject it, but so far approve "of it, as to endeavour to explain its mystical and obscure passages." But as I shall hereafter prove abundantly, that Clemens of Rome never made any appeal to this apocryphal Gospel, (viz. in the appendix,) so I shall endeavour here to prove the same of Clemens of Alexandria. My observation consists of three parts: viz. that he never saw it, nor cited it, but rejected it. I shall endeavour to prove the truth of each separately.

1. Clemens Alexandrinus never saw the Gospel according to the Egyptians. This I gather from what himself says in the second testimony, viz. p. 452. above produced; Péperai dè, oiμαι, ἐν τῷ κατ ̓ Αἰγυπτίους Εὐαγγελίῳ, φασὶ γὰρ, ὅτι αὐτὸς εἶπεν Σωτήρ, Zwryp, &c. "These things" (viz. the discourses between Christ and Salome)" are, AS I SUPPOSE, to be found in the Gospel "according to the Egyptians; for, they say, that our Saviour "said," &c. From whence it is plain, that he was uncertain in what Gospel these discourses were, else he would not have said, "I suppose" they are therein. Had he read the Gospel, or ever seen it, he could not have been in this doubting uncertainty. Besides, from the next words it is evident, he only cites by tradition from others, "they say, that our Saviour "said these things;" which implies his own dubiousness and ignorance in the matter.

2. Clemens Alexandrinus never cited or appealed to this Gospel. This indeed does necessarily follow from the former head, but will more clearly appear, if we consider, that all the several fragments of it, that are extant in Clemens, were produced by the heretics, against whom he is disputing, not by him, as will appear by a bare reading the places cited: so the first passage, page 445, he premises, Teita xal diαotgentéov, αὐτοὺς τὰ ὑπ' αὐτῶν φερόμενα διαλύοντας, ὧδέ πως, τῇ Σαλώμῃ ὁ Κύ pios, &c. "Now I must overthrow and confute the things "urged or cited by them out of the Gospel of the Egyptians,"

t History of the Canon of the New Test. vol. 2. c. 6. §. 3. "Spicileg. Patr. tom. 1. p. 34.

66

&c. So likewise in the next passage, p. 452. Oi dì áνTITAσσÓμEVOL τῇ κτίσει τοῦ Θεοῦ—κἀκεῖναι λέγουσι τὰ πρὸς Σαλώμην εἰρημένα, ὧν πρότερον ἐμνήσθημεν, &c. They who oppose the designs of "God's creation by their specious pretences to celibacy, cite "those things, which our Saviour spake to Salome, which I "have above mentioned," &c. Again in the third passage, p. 453. he premises, οὐχὶ καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς τῶν πρὸς Σαλώμην εἰρημένων iπipépouσy, &c. "The things which follow, spoken to Salome, ἐπιφέρουσιν, "they cite, who had rather use any books than the canonical ones," &c. Once more, p. 465, he particularly mentions the person who cited this Gospel, Διὰ τοῦτό τοι ὁ Κασσιανὸς φησὶ, πυνθανομένης τῆς Σαλώμης, &c. "Wherefore Cassianus saith, "when Salome asked Christ," &c. So that nothing can be more manifest, than that Clemens himself does not cite or appeal to this apocryphal piece, but only cites the writings of heretics, in which appeals were made to it.

66

66

66

66

But, 3. Clemens was so far from citing it, or approving the Gospel of the Egyptians, that he utterly rejects it, as an impious, heretical, and apocryphal book. This will be manifest, if we observe, that the only design of Clemens, in producing these passages out of the heretics' books, is to confute them, and their ridiculous notions of the unlawfulness of all sorts of marriages. Hence he begins with this introduction, p. 445. "As for those who by specious pretences of continency think impiously both of the creation, and the holy Creator, the only Almighty God, and say, that no marriages are lawful, nor procreation of children; that we ought not to bring "others into the world to be unhappy, nor satisfy the cruelty "of death, I have the following things to say; first, that of “John, And now, there are many antichrists, whence we "know the later times are come. They went out from us, but "were never of us, for if they had been of us, then they would « have continued with us. Ἔπειτα καὶ διαστρεπτέον αὐτοὺς, τὰ σε ὑπ ̓ αὐτῶν φερόμενα διαλυόντας, ὧδέ πως, τῇ Σαλώμῃ,” &c. In the next place I must confute those things, which they cite [out of the Gospel of the Egyptians] in this manner, "When "Salome asked Christ," &c. p. 445. Which when he had confuted, he introduces the next passage thus: "They who 'by their plausible celibacy oppose the creation of God, urge

66

"the things spoken by Christ to Salome," &c. p. 452. And in the next page, though he does not call this Gospel in so many words apocryphal, yet he plainly does in other words: Οὐχὶ καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς τῶν πρὸς Σαλώμην εἰρημένων, ἐπιφέρουσιν, οἱ πάντα μᾶλλον ἢ τῷ κατὰ τὴν ἀλήθειαν εὐαγγελικῷ στοιχήσαντες Κανόνι, φαμένης αὐτῆς, μévns yàp autñs, &c. "The things which follow, spoken to Sa"lome, they cite, who had rather follow any thing than the "true canon of the Gospel," &c. R. 453. Once more, when he is about to answer the fragment urged out of this Gospel, he reasons against it thus: Πρῶτον μὲν οὖν, ἐν τοῖς παραδεδομένοις ἡμῖν τέταρσιν Εὐαγγελίοις οὐκ ἔχομεν τὸ ῥητὸν, ἀλλ ̓ ἐν τῷ κατ' Αἰ

γυπτίους. "First," says he, "this saying is not in either of "the four Gospels which have been [received] delivered to us, "but in that according to the Egyptians," p. 465. He who will lay these things together without prejudice, must evidently perceive, that as Clemens never saw, so he utterly rejected the authority of this Gospel, and esteemed it no other than a vile forgery of some impious heretics. I wish Dr. Grabe had well considered these things, before he gave this Gospel so high a character; but prejudice strangely blinds the greatest men; and it is easy to see that Dr. Grabe's circumstances, when in England, inclined him to a too fond affection for apocryphal books: so that I think Le Clerc did him no injustice, when he lately styled him Apocryphorum nimis studiosus ×.

OBSERV. III. The Gospel of the Egyptians seems to have been composed by some very early heretics to support their doctrines of celibacy and abstemiousness, and very probably by those of Egypt.

To confirm this conjecture, I observe,

First, That there were in the very infancy of Christianity great numbers of persons called Christians, who asserted the unlawfulness of marriages, and professed a great abstemiousness in their manner of life. Against these St. Paul writes in several of his Epistles; for instance, those words, 1 Cor. vii. 1. It is good for a man not to touch a woman; which are not St. Paul's words, (as our translation makes them to be, and most persons think,) but their words to him, intimating a question that had been started by some heretics among them, whether Histor. Eccl. de Ascens. Christ. ad Aun. 29. not. ad §. 13. p. 333.